Posted on 04/08/2015 12:59:17 PM PDT by IChing
I don't believe this statement is true. He has a single conviction of "possession of a bludgeon." That charge is almost 25 years old, and as some legal scholars argue, bogus: knives and bludgeons are protected under the Heller definition of RKBA [I agree.]
A prior accusation of assault and battery [almost 30 years ago] that amounted to nothing is not part of his "criminal history."
Too bad, Scott will never get to make that child support payment. Let’s ask the daughter if she is better off now.
You ARE from Cuba.
Everyone needs to remember that if this video was exactly the same, except that the policer officer was replaced by a citizen who had been mugged by the shooting victim, that the civilian shooter would be convicted of murder one, period, end of discussion. And sued until he was destroyed financially. And have every single one of his defense explanations of motives, fears, worries, protection, passesby, possibilities and understandings thrown right out the courtroom window into the dumpster as they hauled him out of court in chains.
That’s the truth - and you know it.
Muchas gracias
Most likely explanation.
Did I say otherwise?
Did I say otherwise?
Did I say otherwise?
Did I say otherwise?
My information was that he was convicted of assault and battery, but if that’s incorrect, thank you for setting it straight.
Murder 1? Not a chance.
Oh look, a bumper sticker. Here's mine:
Murder 1? Absolutely.
Thanks for playing.
Of course, I also believe that police should be allowed to shoot at people running away that refuse to stop.
...
According to the SCOTUS Garner decision, a person must at the least be a danger to either the officer or someone else. Garner was simply climbing over a fence to get away from the police. He didn’t have a physical altercation with an officer like Scott did. The state investigation will probably take a few months, and then it will be up to a jury to decide.
2nd degree is a stretch, and of course I’ve already argued it will be voluntary manslaughter instead, but murder 1? Come on. Perhaps you don’t actually know the criteria...
The legal criteria is as follows: A trained police officer calmly shooting an unarmed man from 30 feet who is running away eight times in the back is murder one.
The wires are still in the man and extend as he runs away from the cop.
That doesn’t happen if the man has the taser in his hand.
After checking the man, the cop goes back, picks up the taser and drops it next to the man.
http://www.wsbradio.com/news/news/national/shocking-video-shows-sc-cop-fatally-shooting-black/nkpYH/
Hope the skunk burns, feel sorry for his pregnant wife.
I will give your scenario a one in a million chance of actually happening; and that is generous on my part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.